Echoing GOP attack line, Blitzer referred to "the class warfare argument that the Democrats make"
SUMMARY: On Late Edition, Wolf Blitzer described opposition to President Bush's 2001 tax cuts on the grounds that "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief" as "almost like the class warfare argument that the Democrats make," echoing an attack Republicans commonly use against Democratic positions.
On the February 3 edition of CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer described opposition to President Bush's 2001 tax cuts on the grounds that "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief" as "almost like the class warfare argument that the Democrats make." Blitzer's reference echoes a Republican attack line that Democratic positions on taxes and the economy amount to "class warfare."
Blitzer's remarks came during an interview with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. After reading two quotes from 2001 in which Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) justified his vote against President Bush's tax cuts, Blitzer asserted that "a lot of people suggest that that's [McCain's justification for his vote] almost like the class warfare argument that the Democrats make -- the rich people don't need tax cuts, the middle class, the poor people need tax cuts." Blitzer then asked Huckabee: "What do you say about those arguments that he made then in justifying his vote against President Bush's tax cut?"
In a May 2001 statement, McCain justified his vote against the final version of Bush's initial tax-cut package, saying, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
However, McCain has reversed his position on the Bush tax cuts and now favors making them permanent. Further, as Media Matters for America has documented, McCain has revised his explanation for voting against the Bush tax cuts and has repeatedly asserted -- and media outlets have uncritically reported -- that he voted against them because they were not accompanied by cuts in federal spending. Blitzer did not note that McCain now supports making the tax cuts permanent or that he has revised his justification for voting against them in 2001.
From the February 3 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: In 2001, when John McCain voted against President Bush's tax cuts, he was one of two Republican senators to do so, including Lincoln Chafee, the former Republican senator from Rhode Island.
In justifying his nay vote on the Senate floor, he said these two things. On May 21st, 2001, McCain said: "The principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most, lower- and middle-income working families."
And then on May 26th, he said: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."
Now, a lot of people suggest that that's almost like the class warfare argument that the Democrats make -- the rich people don't need tax cuts, the middle class, the poor people need tax cuts.
What do you say about those arguments that he made then in justifying his vote against President Bush's tax cut?
HUCKABEE: Well, I supported the president's tax cuts then. I support them now. I think anytime you can cut taxes, it's a good thing. And I don't believe that those tax cuts only affected those at the top.
But certainly, good tax policy ought to even things out for everybody. It's the reason I support the FairTax, which is a whole lot better than just cutting a few taxes here and there and making winners and losers.
It's the reason that a completely new tax approach is really preferable, because it empowers everyone in the economy, those from the top to the bottom. But the people at the bottom actually end up getting the best deal out of the FairTax. So I hope more people will start looking at it and realizing that's the direction we really need to go.
Class warfare has been going on since the advent of civilization. The rich throw as many crumbs to the peasants as is needed to keep them in line – sometimes they even let them play in the game, as long as the game they are playing suites their interests and caters to their needs.
If you were ever in a trade union, or part of contract negotiations - you have a good understanding of just how the game is played.
They can call it "class warfare" - I prefer to call it "leveling the playing field".
Attack line?
What is attacking about pointing out that when you pit one group against another, you are engaging in warfare. It may be hyperbole considering it's obviously not "war", but in the case of political-speak, it defines the actions of those doing it quite well.
If you think high deficits left by one generation don't burden another...you've lost your marbles.
Bushs $400 BBBillion deficit proposal this year will be the 2nd largest should it materialize. He already owns the top deficit, and the 3rd best and the 4th best. His daddy owns #5.
What a legacy.
In the context of cutting benefits, and exporting jobs, and the free market, it is off topic. This is about taxes on individuals and the raising or lowering of them.
If you want to broaden it to other topics, be my guest.
Uh, I thought it was already broadened, by you.
You didn't specifically mention taxes and neither did Solon, so I mistakenly thought, as Brab did, that the topic was 'class warfare'. Taxes are only one of many different fronts in which the war on the nation's middle class is waged.
"Class warfare" is in the headline, so corporate culture that exacerbates that is on topic.
Or do you really want to argue that corporate policy has no impact on earnings?
The bottom line is that if you praise the free market, then you support the eventual excesses such a system reaches. Feeding the rich and starving the poor is clearly such an excess.
So a capitalistic free market economy eventually means starving poor people?
If you say so....
Finding a ideal balance in a capitalist system that protects employees and consumers, promotes U.S. economic self-sustenance, and entices risk takers into entrepreneurship should be our goal. I have yet to see a president or a congress in my lifetime who's willing to seriously work toward it.
If it's allowed to do whatever it wants, sure. Companies that cut employee benefits and wages earn more profits. Companies that don't do that are then at a disadvantage in the marketplace. And the more companies that adopt that sort of policy, the less realistic it is to say "well go work somewhere else if you don't like it here".
Corporations will tread on people's lives in the interest of the bottom line. Child labor laws and safety standards weren't instituted out of some theoretical future need, they were instituted because companies were hiring children and endangering workers. That's why government should be able to regulate these sorts of things, to prevent the drive for profit from going too far.
CLASS WARFARE is being waged with great energy in the USA, and has been ever since GW Bush took office (and before, but with much more energy since the GOP were in total control).
The WAR pits the middle class against the poor, and seeks to have the very wealthy left alone. Meanwhile, owners WAR against workers, Financial institutions WAR against their customers, Oil Companies WAR against consumers, and the Administration WARS against American citizens who question WAR.
In each instance, wealthy interests are seeking advantages which go into THEIR bottom line, and it comes from the pockets of Average Americans. Gas prices, energy prices, health care costs, pharmaceuticals, endless WAR ... in EVERY instance, the wealthy interests spend MILLIONS for lobbiests to realize BILLIONS in advantages, all arrived at by governmental intervention, new rules, no-bid contracts, or "benign neglect" in the enforcement of regulations.
So, CLASS WARFARE is being waged mightily in America, and for the past decade, the WEALTHY have been winning big-time. The "redistribution of wealth" in America has all been UP ... away from hard working families and into the coffers of business owners, CEOs, and wealthy folks, international cartels and the military/industrial complex.
Meanwhile, the PROTECTIONS of our environment, our workers, our children are IGNORED, causing direct harm to America's middle class.
Rightwingers wish to ONLY call it Class Warfare if those with NO power ask for some balance or fairness. That is CLASS WARFARE, they say. But if the wealthy interests are falling all over themselves to loot our treasury and impoverish our workers ... that's just "business as usual". Gimme a break!
Well put as always, Tex.
So now that we've seen once again what can happen when the wealthy are winning the class war, the GOP's diagnoses of the resulting problems are that taxes on the rich are still too high and the markets are "too regulated".
Today I came across an excellent article at WebMD about CEO salaries in the health care industry. This should be required reading for anyone who believes the health care market "isn't free enough", or that skyrocketing costs are worth it because we're "funding tomorrow's miracles," or that the personal tax burden of the CEO's is too high.
I, like the author, did not specifically advocate capping the salaries of CEO's who get paid for placing the sick and injured into financial ruin. I, just as the author stated, know that something needs to be done to reduce costs, because the free market on health care, in its current state, has been a failure. Failure in this case meaning it hasn't reduced costs through competition.
I highlighted the article to expose any myth that may exist that the nation's wealthiest people are not engaging in class warfare.
It is ridiculous that in the wealthiest country in the world a person, who works a full-time job, has to struggle to provide for their family. It's the opposite of family values to pay a person so meager a wage that such a person must sacrifice time at home to woirk two and three jobs just to scrape by. And we ain't supposed to be pissed about this? Pishaw! Like it was said back in the day, "Without justice there can be no peace."
CAPITALISM contains within it's structure the seed to its own destruction.
The RULES of capitalism are, (1) grow or die, (2) increase market share, and (3) eliminate or absorb all competition.
These RULES very soon lead to MONOPOLY, which is the utter FAILURE of Capitalism (as it eliminates the essential element of 'competition').
Thus, capitalism can ONLY SURVIVE if regulated, kept from realizing the inevitable endpoint of its practice. ANTI-TRUST laws were made necessary when the robber barons of the late 1800's were establishing monopolies in many industries, including railroad, steel production, and the like.
ONLY GOVERNMENT can intervene and make sure Capitalism continues to WORK for the people.
Capitalism is the best system devised to bring the most prosperity to the most people. But the system itself is fatally flawed, and cannot function for long without limits, regulation, and oversight to prevent its worst excesses.
Finally, there is no such thing as a "free market". NONE. ALL markets are manipulated in a hundred ways by every government involved. Those governments can favor THE PEOPLE, or favor the ELITES. Each government makes its choice, as to who will BENEFIT from the "UNfree markets". Unsurprisingly, governments almost ALWAYS favor the ELITES in this manipulated marketing, and the USA is no exception.
Yes, Tommy, it's all on me and the author.
Unfortunately, it's also anyone who's been plunged into bankruptcy or death at the hands of one of these companies.
Fortunately, my day hasn't come and I hope it doesn't.
In the 70s the average CEO made about 25 times as much as the average worker in his industry in the US, 17 times in Europe and 11 times in Japan. Today it is more than 400 times as much. Wages have been stagnant since the 70's while corporate profits have soared. What happened to the social compact that as businesses did better the workers got brought along and THEY did better? Are you arguing that workers are LESS important than some concept about free markets no matter WHAT the outcome? Look at the third world model of capitalist economies in say Latin America there are the poor and the rich and virtually no one in between. I am saying that is BAD for an economy. Like Roosevelt said.
We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics.
SOLON FOR PRESIDENT!
Your last two posts kicked a$$.
CLEVE:
Hmmm. Let's wait out the primaries. I still gotta shot at the top spot! LOL
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Class warfare is the rhetoric the Republican needs to make the argument in. Class warfare is a syllybol away from the Democrats want to turn America into a socialism, then the next leap is "commies."
We were holding the light for freedom and democracy in the world for 45years of Cold War, but some how the 90% tax bracket is a thing of the past, the highest is now 35% and even less. We cut capital gains taxes to allow a new American gentry, and the new 'Guilded Age' for the very richest among us, and a real nightmare for the vast majority of us.
Let's take the rhetoric of the Neo-Cons, the distortions of history and let them be exposed in full for the crap they always were. Restore the Clinton tax rates, Medicare, Social Security, and restore the surplus, restore the path we were on before this nightmare started with a flim-flam of a Supreme Court decision that they had no right to make.
Good Governance, not rhetoric, communism, socialism, just good, sincere governance.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
TOMMY, for a time you had me fooled. There I was, thinking that, despite your frequent lapses into gratuitous liberal-bashing, you had both a mind and a heart and were in failrly close touch with both.
But now, after seeing post after post, I see the light under the bushel. Tommy, I suspect you know what a troll is. But do you know what a sophist is? You ought to, if that's what you want to be.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
See there Tommy, PIGS do fly!
Happy Thoughts, but wear your rain gear;
Dan Grady
ENFORCEMENT of policy is always difficult.
Under BUSH and the GOP Congress majority for FIVE SOLID YEARS, the IRS enforced tax law. Throughout total GOP control of our government, the IRS was seizing property and garnisheeing wages and attaching fines.
Yet, nobody asked the GOP what force, fines and/or penalties they would be using to enforce IRS law.
AH, but now the Democrats are pursuing universal health care. All of a sudden, the ENFORCEMENT is the major thing that has to be discussed.
LAW without ENFORCEMENT is useless. To make the enforcement THE ISSUE is to distract and misdirect from the actual issues, and to do so in an ENTIRELY PARTISAN MANNER.
I could be wrong. Could someone direct me to the citations where GW BUSH was hammered and pinned down on IRS enforcement? What coercive means our government would use to get taxes paid? Did I miss that policy discussion?
I find this whole "class warfare" thing tiring. We have long had a progressive taxation system. This system is fundamentally "unfair" but necessary for a functioning society. The wealthy gain more cumulative benefit from our system of government in protecting their property, in their utilization of infrastructure, and in protecting the ability to accumulate more wealth - they should pay for that. The poor reap a greater benefit on a percentage basis in government services versus the "revenue" they provide in taxation - they should pay what they can and use these benefits to improve their situation as much as possible.
The "warfare", such as it is, is a measure of how successful the politicians are in convincing us to wage war on one other. From a historical perspective, upper income earners are enjoying some of the lowest cumulative taxation levels in decades. Since we as a nation are accumulating debt as an increasing percentage of our GDP, and continue to fight a (immoral) war "off the books", it is probably time to ask the wealthy to cover a somewhat larger share of our national "Visa" bill. I am upper middle class and am perfectly willing to pay a little more. What I ask in return is a legitimate attempt by EITHER party to couple increased taxation with legitimate spending reductions. Our fiscal house is not in order and if we keep playing this Ponzi scheme (the Fed printing money and American accumulating debt with no national savings), we will all be enjoying a revisit of the 1930's very soon.
Nice overview of the whole thing, TBone. I have to laugh everytime I hear the radio screechers use the "Class warfare" trigger. Completely ignoring how skewed the system is and has been towards helping those who need it least, then when it's pointed out, accusing those who are doing the pointing of starting trouble.
Not very difficult to figure that those who have all the advantages don't want to rock the boat.
Not very difficult to figure that those who have all the advantages don't want to rock the boat.
Tbone’s great overview - and now you with a one-liner that sums up the whole argument. Sweet!
Wolf Blitzer is a millionaire, many times over. So are ALL the anchormen, pundits, and analysts that we see over and over on talk show after talk show. When he talks about Democrats engaging in 'class warfare', it is simply to cover up the fact that he himself is a grateful beneficiary of the ACTUAL class warfare that is being conducted by the Bush Administration. These people owe much of their great wealth and positions of privilege to these robber baron, neocon policies of the last seven years... both the tax cuts AND the seemingly endless mergers of these massive media conglomerates.
Don't expect these talking heads to stand up for the interests of working class people.
It would not be in their own financial interests to do so.
Tommy,
Can someone advocate removing the Bush tax cuts and not be accused of pitting one group against another?
The REAL issue is, were the Bush Tax Cuts overwhelmingly in favor of one "CLASS" of society, and if so (empirically they WERE), is this an example of Republicans legislating Class Warfare?
Answer: proof positive.
Al Franken had the best line:
In the middle ages, when the peasants would revolt and overthrow their lord, they would roast him over a spit in front of his family. THAT was class warfare. People discussing what is the optimal top marginal tax rate IS NOT class warfare.
The best way to remedy the growing inequality of income in this country is to empower workers. If the CEO has a solid pension so should the guy who cleans the toilets. If upper management rewards themselves for greater productivity or increased profits, likewise they should include the entire company. It's about creating a workforce invested in the success of the company.
And since your so obsessed with taxes as the solution to everything, why not grant tax incentives for companies who do th right thing and ethically empower their employees?
Uppercut,
If I am a small businessman and have risked my home, my money on a venture that employs other people, beyond the job, what is owed to them?
Its the same for a CEO and a maintenance person. The 'benefits' provided to either should encourage me to continue to work for the company as long as they continue to make enough profit to stay in business. Equalized pay and benefits are not a right, but can become important if in my own intiative, I make myself so necessary to the company that I earn those benefits.
I know of a simple man who began his career out of high school as a maintenance worker in a plant. Upon arriving he worked hard and demonstated initiative and learned other jobs there to possibly earn a better wage. He did, but when the company downsized he was out of a job. He took his knowledge and this layoff and parlayed it into an opportunity. He began a maintenance service company where he basically marketted himself to other companies to provide services to other local companies and offices. He now employs a small number of people and makes a nice living. He provides people the opportunity to learn about work take pride in improving themselves. Most come with little decent work history. He's even encouraged past employees to become self-employed and one actually has the maintenance contract for the company that orginally downsized his boss!
The left would have you believe this was an evil man because 1) he now should pay more taxes to the government because of his success? (This actually keeps him from expanding and hiring more people, so he has encouraged others to start to work for themselves) and 2) because his only resistence has come from unions because they made it impossible for companies to afford to hire entry level employess so they farm the work out.
"If I am a small businessman and have risked my home, my money on a venture that employs other people, beyond the job, what is owed to them?"
Do they not take the same risk going to work for you? Do they not give their loyalty and sweat in return for a chance to get ahead. If they don't, you need to ammend your hiring practices and always remember you get what you pay for.
"The left would have you believe this was an evil man because 1) he now should pay more taxes to the government because of his success?"
Well, no. That guy like every hard worker is exactly the kind of guy lefties like me admire. However, not everybody is born with such insights or ablilities. Just as not everybody can be an artist, not everybody has the entrepreneurial spirit. Some folks just want to work their 40 hours and have plenty of time at home with their family. That too is admirable in my book.
Where you get it wrong is this belief that he owes nothing extra. Through infrastructure, an educated workforce, through laws and various other protections provided by our government he has been empowered to prosper. He has benefited greatly because of ublic investments and believe it or not, his country was there for him every step of the way. There really is no such thing as the self-made man.
"(This actually keeps him from expanding and hiring more people, so he has encouraged others to start to work for themselves) and 2) because his only resistence has come from unions because they made it impossible for companies to afford to hire entry level employess so they farm the work out."
Really? If I read you right (the sentence structure difficult) You're going to argue that unions present unfair competition in the free maket? It's the fault of unions because they enable workers to take a job that pays a living wage and that dynamic causes non-union shops to raise their wages? And that's a bad thing?
Well said.
Allow me to add that if said business owner really wanted to expand and add more workers, he would. It's more likely that he examined the market, determined that hiring more workers would not result in a decent return on investment and decided against it. Saying that high taxes stifle expansion is just a smoke screen.
sitsaround the house,
I don't curse or use epithets in any of my postings. The name change just meant to lighten things up a bit. I stop when indiviuals ask me nicely to refrain, no serious offense intended.
As for my comments, why should the business owner carry more of the load? Why can't each pay their fair share?
I am not saying that no taxes should be paid by the owner, just that they are too high as it is. As for the benefit of the worker, I know that people that he gives raises to employees when they remain longer with his small company and pays for other benefits. They also gain from the opportunity to even work at all because of the risk he took. He hold no illusions that people will always want to do the work he hires them for, but knows that many have moved on and generally up thanks to the opportunity his risk and entreprenurial courage afforded them.
corn.
The institution of 'speech codes' is not a creation of conservatives but leftists on college campuses. Being on a campus you can see that you can say pretty much what you want that degrades catholics and all of christianity. However, conservative speakers are outlawed by defalt, because we might offend someone, while every lefty whack-job is embraced and welcomed.
The 'fairness doctrine' as another example.
>>The institution of 'speech codes' is not a creation of conservatives but leftists on college campuses.
Could you please post a link to the copy of this fictional code? And could you post a link showing where conservative speakers are outlawed?
Somethingfunnyinmypants,
Here are two such sights, one from the right
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5822.html
and one from the left....
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes
"It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."
Liberals pit groups against one another, including the proletariat verseus the bourgeois
Please explain to me how removing the Bush tax cuts is pitting one group against another. Liberals are not condemning all of the wealthy, but criticizing the current system that largely only benefits a small portion of society that are already well-off.
Roundhouse is right, your entire post is one big strawman.
corn,
Are you agreeing with those who want the 'Fair Tax'?
biggest clue as to it really being "class" warfare ...
Wolf says "the most fortunate among US" ... obviously, he includes himself in the elite "we/us" (as well as those who buy into his BS), as opposed to the working stiffs who compose the "they/them" ...
So how do you get a 6 figure plus income just from reading White House press releases and having the Heritage Foundation write your teleprompter notes? Do you really have to sign your soul, or is that just a given now?
The tax cuts were wrong because:
1/ we couldn't afford them and
2/ they were paid for by either borrowing as deficit from the general funds or using the surplus in cash flow from the Social Security Trust and as a result
3/ it was middle and lower class wage earners who indeed paid in many ways for the tax cuts for the rich.
We need some serious class warfare, only this time it should be against the rich and it should be they who pay.
Denuciation,
Lowering tax rates increases revenue to gov't coffers because it encourages economic activity. When it is too expensive to do something or buy something, people stop doing it. Making the activity more affordable increases the opportunity for people to engage and generate economic growth which in turn increases the amount of revenue collected.
When a department store, say Wal-mart, announces a sale, it is generally designed to move product through the store. Higer prices stifle that kind of activity. Even though Wal-mart makes less on each item sold, it ends up making more revenue because more product is moved.
Consider a tax rate cut as a sale on gov't services. More money is available for individuals to engage in purchasing, investing, creating economic activity that can then be taxed and fill the gov't's coffers. As a matter of fact, recently more revenue has made its way to dc than expected. Now with the cyclical downturn what does the gov't want to do? Lower rates by providing rebates to taxpayers, a one-time sale lets say. Why, the hope is that the individuals will engage in some time of economic activity that will in turn, maintain the engine of economic growth.
And if I am 'wealthy' according to some arbitrary figure, why should I not benefit in the sale? If someone making $10,000 gets 10% tax rate cut, why not the one making $100,000?
Really? I would argue that being free from the shackles of the high cost of healthcare, education and energy would encourage economic activity. I would argue that if we all pooled our resources, as a nation, to secure these services we could leverage that purchasing power for the lowest possible cost at the highest possible quality for most Americans. It's called shared risk and shared reward, it's the principle that built the greatest middle class in the history of the world.
"When it is too expensive to do something or buy something, people stop doing it."
Our unprecedented rates of personal debt would indicate otherwise. Buyers are not rational actors.
"Lower rates by providing rebates to taxpayers, a one-time sale lets say. Why, the hope is that the individuals will engage in some time of economic activity that will in turn, maintain the engine of economic growth."
This is a short term fix, a band-aid on a bullet wound, let's say. It does nothing to address the bane of deregulated markets which ushered in the downturn in the first place. Nor does it addres the rights of workers or protect us from the economic threats of globalization. It does nothing to alleviate the vulnerability of those of us working like mad to balance our lives between home and work.
Squarecottage,
You are describing classic command economy theory. Look at what is happening in Venezuala, no groceries, threats of taking over more of means of production and siezing private property. It is also what happened in Zimbabwai, loss of private property, dictates for production, price controls and now hyperinflation and higher unemployment. That's what will happen anytime command economy theory is applied.
You speak of high price of healthcare and energy. When a universal system is in place, the cost of healthcare will lower as services are also withdrawn. Wait times in Canada and England are unbelievable because healthcare is rationed. Only those who can afford to, generally come to states for care, the rest are stuck waiting for weeks for procedures that we can access in hours. Instead of the buracracy of socialized medicine, divie up the cost in the form of vouchers. Take what money is already given out in the form of tax breaks and expenditures by gov't and let individuals take that voucher to the private insurance provider of their choice. Market forces will bring down the cost by driving efficiency and individual choice. People will ration their own care and seek what will benefit them. Also allow for anything saved by the indv. to be placed into a medical savings account, possibly supplemented by their own monies to use as their own to pay for expensive procedures. The insurance provided by private companies can include catastrophic care formulae.
Public education could be managed in similar fashion. Our collegate system of vouchers, (loans, grants) has helped make ours the envy of the world. Foreign students come to our shores to get the education they feel is best. Nobody from China comes to K-12 because of excellence there. Once again, give people the choice to reward schools that work and make those who stink to step up or be gone. Spend the money already given to public schools via state and fed gov'ts directly to the parents. Then watch performance scores go through the roof.
As for energy, the cost will continue to go up as gov't adds taxes, either at the pump or some nonsensical windfall tax. Either way, we'll pay more. As soon as we say we will drill in ANWR or off our coasts, the price will drop about $25/barrel because OPEC will want to fend that freeflow from ever hitting the market.
It is the free market that makes economies grow. Let business profit, then in turn hire more workers and watch the revenue amounts go up for gov't. Then we can talk about reducing the size of gov't, and bringing balance to the budget.
You also ignore the very basic fact that we are a representaive democracy and as such if the quality of healthcare should slip in a single payer system, that self same institution is accountable to we the people. You'll get no such voice from the private insurance company that is anti-democratic and accountable only to shareholders, who are gauranteed by law, that the company must turn a profit.
But none of this matters because your entire premise is flawed. When you talk about people saving money for medical expenses you assume that buyers are rational actors. They are not. As I pointed out our unprecedented rates of personal debt indicate that people do not spend their money on basics. For your plan to work somebody is gonna have to be forced to invest their money into some insurance plan that, more than likely, may or may not cover their needs.
And when you talk about letting businesses grow, while I'm fine with that, you totally ignore the fact that corporate profits are through the roof, yet we still face shrinking a shrinking middle class. Despite these record profits, jobs are still being sent overseas or the employers just simply are not including employees in the wealth they are creating.
The money is out there and it's staying out there.
The ANWR argument is a joke. Petroleum is a finite resource. We need investment in clean, renewable and sustainable energy sources in order to secure true energy independence for the sake of ensuring long term national security.
As for education, I am not at all in favor of creating a system that provides quality education for some willing to pay and is substandard for the rest. This is not negotiable as I believe we do best as a country we are all aware that we sink or swim together. It's much better to fix the problems in the very fixable system than it is to simply destroy it.
As is becoming clear, our fundamental differences reside in the reality that I believe in the liberal principles of mutual responsibility, broad prosperity and effective government. Yours is the opposite.
Have a good'n.
Education has a liberal bias now? I take that as a compliment, really. :)
Anyway, I personally don't know of any university that allows people to publicly disparage christiainity and religion in general, while banning conservative viewpoints. Even if you could give me some examples, they'd probably be isolated incidents and not a mainstream problem.
As for the fairness doctrine, doesn't that have to do with the public airwaves?
Through infrastructure, an educated workforce, through laws and various other protections provided by our government he has been empowered to prosper. He has benefited greatly because of ublic investments and believe it or not, his country was there for him every step of the way. There really is no such thing as the self-made man
Nicely said. Hard work and determination are meaningless without the resources and opportunities to succeed.
youarewhatyousay-you are,
The reason that we are in the fix now has alot to do with the choices that both lenders and borowwers made. Big homes with no furniture and, mortgages beyond one's ability to pay led to this. Once home prices stabilize, things will rebound. That is the nature of capitalism and people and companies will live within their means.
And we are not in terrible shape economically. Growth is down but only growing at a smaller rate than what we are used to. It is still much better than European countries where unemployment is higher than here. I remember the good ole days when Jimmy Carter was president. We had zero growth and high inflation (stagflation). Unemployment around 10%. interest rates 20% and inflation about 8-9%. Contrast that with today. Command economics created all of the above and gave us the term misery index, add unemployment with inflation-then 19%, now what 6-7%?
Hope this clears up the confusion and the dazed feeling you are experiencing.